Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Like nuclear energy, the impact factor has become a mixed blessing. I expected that it would be used constructively while recognizing that in the wrong hands it might be abused.
A significant abuse is to misuse the IF number to represent all articles published in that journal. For most journals, the 80/20 rule applies, where 80% of the IF is the result of 20% of the articles published. Yet, 100% of the articles receive the benefit of a high IF, decreasing a few articles and raising many others. While there are several known and very real issues regarding each article level metric, they provide a broader, more objective view of an articles impact from different perspectives. Citations, views, downloads, comments, trackbacks/blog posts, social bookmarks, and reader ratings are the more common metrics. They are available from a few publishers but more often from online repositories and open access journals. As discussed in detail below, SSRN provides downloads, citations, and Eigenfactor to its users. We are involved in and support the PIRUS2 project, which is working to create standards for certain article level metrics to be consolidated across multiple organizations. Providing valid, verifiable statistics across a wide variety of organizations is a long road but creating high quality standards is the critical first step. Downloads Downloads are a more timely indicator of interest than citations, especially for new ideas and younger scholars. The importance of scholarship cannot, of course, be captured by a single ranking, but downloads certainly generate a lot of discussion.
4,950,000 3,400,000
2,950,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 est
Downloads provide information about scholarly impact, in a way that differs from other measures. They are a measure of the number of times a paper has been delivered to an interested party. SSRN takes great care to ensure that download counts are an accurate measure of usage and expends a significant amount of resources to maintain their integrity. First, we distribute complete abstracts of every paper ensuring that interested readers make informed decisions regarding whether or not to download the full text of a particular paper, rather than uninformed explorations triggered only by a catchy or vague title. A SSRN download starts with the
reader visiting the paper's "abstract page." Readers, who still want to read the paper, can then download it. In our and others experiences, approximately one out of four abstract views results in a download. Second, we do not count multiple downloads of the same paper by the same person nor machine or "robot" downloads. If SSRN permitted a single click to download a paper from another source, such as a search engine or a blog, and counted all mechanical downloads, this would inflate its download counts by a factor that has been increasing over time and is now close to six. This would degrade download counts as a signal of paper quality, and substantially increase the ability of users to manipulate them. In the last several years, download counts have taken on a higher level of importance and are used in a variety of ways. Anecdotally speaking, we are aware of download counts being included in tenure committees submission packages, checklists during the faculty hiring process, components of law school annual reviews, and dissertation downloads being used in grant funding evaluations. Citations As noted above, IF has an inherent 80/20 limitation and unless citations are provided for a specific paper, it is very difficult to predict them. In simple terms, a citation is a reference from one paper to another paper that helps indicate the influence of the original paper. SSRN's CiteReader technology, developed with ITX Corp., scans a full text PDF file and captures the references found in it. Those references are then verified through a combination of technology and human review. The verified references are parsed into smaller metadata fields and then matched against other articles in the SSRN eLibrary. It not only provides interesting data on who is citing whom and how often, but it also provides a research timeline allowing readers to easily go backward and forward in a subject matter. The References and Citations pages are freely available for the reader to follow the flow of the literature within and across multiple disciplines. Interestingly, approximately 13% of SSRNs 3.9 million Citations are to working papers within the SSRN eLibrary. Eigenfactor The EigenfactorTM Algorithm provides a methodology for determining the most important or influential authors and papers in a network. The algorithm computes a modified form of the eigenvector centrality of each node in the network under the basis that important nodes are connected to other important nodes. This is the basic concept behind Google's PageRank algorithm.
Eigenfactor Scores have previously been used to rank scholarly journals and the scores are freely available at http://www.eigenfactor.org. Within SSRN, we use article level citation data to extend the
Eigenfactor Algorithm to the author level and will apply it to the paper level in the near future. CiteReader calculates the number of times each paper in the SSRN eLibrary database has been cited by other papers in the eLibrary. This data is then used to construct an author citation network, where each author is a node. At a more technical level, the Eigenfactor Scores can be seen as the outcome of two conceptually different but mathematically equivalent stochastic processes. The first process is a simple model of research in which a hypothetical reader follows chains of citations as she moves from node to node ad infinitum. An author's Eigenfactor Score is the percentage of the time that she spends with this author's work in her random walk through the literature. The second process is an iterated voting procedure. Each author divides one vote equally among those authors she cites. In subsequent rounds, each author divides her current vote total, as received in the previous round, equally among those authors whom she cites. This process is iterated indefinitely until we reach a steady state where the number of votes doesnt change. An author's Eigenfactor Score is the percentage of the total votes. A more detailed discussion of Eigenfactor usage within the SSRN Community is available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1636719 There are numerous methods for determining which articles you should read and they have varying levels of success. Article level metrics, especially in SSH, provide the best opportunity for finding the latest, most impactful research. For example, you can use downloads when you need currency, citations for more established areas, and Eigenfactor for broader impact on a community. No one measure is perfect and having a variety to choose from will allow you to use the best one in each situation. Approaching any measure with a reasonable degree of skepticism and minimal amount of cynicism is also a good thing. When I think about the benefits of article level metrics and the focus in many circles attributed to IF I remember a quote from Max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Or as a scholar reminded me the other day, new ideas progress forward funeral by funeral